The Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) scam about multiple plot allotment in 18 reserved categories, including defence, has left the present purchasers a harried lot and forced them to move the Punjab and Haryana high court for re-allotment letters.
In one case where a defence officer had sold his HUDAallotted reserved plot further and then secured another, two Kurukshetra people have challenged HUDA’s refusing to issue the re-allotment letter for the initial sold plot. Taking up the petition of Parveen Kumari and her husband, the division bench comprising justices Surya Kant and Lisa Gill on Tuesday issued a notice of motion to HUDA to demand its reply before May 20.
In the petitioner’s case, officer Jasvinder Singh Ghotra was the original allottee of 325 squareyard defence-quota plot at Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, in May 2002. In May 2005, he sold the plot, after which it had six owners in eight years. In September 2013, it came into the petitioners’ hands.
In June 2006, after a year of selling his first plot, officer Ghotra had another HUDAdefence-quota plot in his name at Jagadhri. In September last year, after the execution of sale deed, the petitioners approached the HUDA officials in Kurukshetra for the transfer of ownership in their name. In October 2013, the HUDA office issued them a letter stating that the plot could not be re-allotted, as the original allottee, officer Gohtra, had obtained multiple plots fraudulently.
{{/usCountry}}In June 2006, after a year of selling his first plot, officer Ghotra had another HUDAdefence-quota plot in his name at Jagadhri. In September last year, after the execution of sale deed, the petitioners approached the HUDA officials in Kurukshetra for the transfer of ownership in their name. In October 2013, the HUDA office issued them a letter stating that the plot could not be re-allotted, as the original allottee, officer Gohtra, had obtained multiple plots fraudulently.
{{/usCountry}}Petitioner's argument
The plot in question was first allotted to officer Jasvinder Singh Ghotra in 2002 when he had no other HUDA plot in his name and there was no cap on re-sale in the allotment letter, the petitioners’ counsel, Vijay Kumar Jindal, has argued. Since Ghotra was allotted another plot in 2006, the first cannot be said to be illegal, and so HUDA cannot refuse re-allotment in petitioners’ name, the counsel has added.